North Yorkshire Council knows home to school transport decision is unpopular but we can't ignore financial reality: Carl Les

It is likely to be the most impactive fiscal event on our services, our staff and our residents that we have ever seen. We say likely, as until the actual announcement we don’t know the detail, and can only work on reasonable assumptions based on analysis of comment, hints and leaks. However, our budget setting work has already begun.

Health and defence spending is expected to rise but there is only one cake to divide. What we are expecting therefore is not good news for local government in general, and rural areas especially.

A forecasted focus on deprivation seems laudable, but deprivation is often hidden in rural areas, in pockets, covered by an overall blanket of seeming affluence. But we know costs of delivery are higher in our world, as distance needs to be factored in. A new criterion likely to appear is density, and that is one factor in very short supply for us, but absolutely key for this government’s natural base.

What we do know is that our financial situation is already serious, with inflation eating away at our costs, an increase in National Insurance contributions adding £8m to our bills, and the withdrawal of Rural Services Support Grant taking a further £13m out of our budgets. I know I have stated all this frequently in the past, but it needs repeating as staying silent doesn’t make it disappear. If only.

It was in this context that we held our special meeting last Wednesday, the first in my memory, called by some opposition Members, seizing an opportunity to overturn a policy introduced last July. The real debate was not about the policy. It was about the right time to review the policy.

I don’t know what the biggest disappointment was. The fact that the motion made no attempt to address that financial situation, not even by a cry of “take it from reserves” which I have heard many times from LibDem colleagues in the past, even though financial prudence would say reserves by their very nature of “when they’re gone, they’re gone” should only be used for one-off measures. Or that the motion gave no recognition, not even a mention, to the chaotic situation that would ensue in changing a policy part way through a year where thousands of decisions had been made on a policy that had been lawfully introduced.

We knew that this was an unpopular policy change for the parents of the 10,000 children affected, 13 per cent of our current population of around 75,000 children at compulsory school age. But decisions must not be taken based on popularity alone.

We also knew that this would affect rural areas more than urban ones, areas where our core voters live. An Equality Impact Assessment, a legal requirement for the introduction of any policy, would show this, the proposers of the motion did not provide one. But decisions should not be taken for political reasons alone, not for protection nor gain.

We will introduce measures to insist that in future motions also must show financial consequences, and impact assessments. To make decisions without such data is irresponsible.

Much was made about a lack of understanding about the policy change, with “no consultation”. But before introducing the policy in July, a consultation exercise did take place from mid February to the end of April. There was not only a survey on our website, the recognised way now of reaching a wide audience, promoted via the media and our social media channels, but also briefings given to heads and school leaders, emails sent to schools asking for included details to be forwarded to parents, and 16 face to face meetings held during the day and evening across the county.

A total of 1,299 responses came back from a cross-section of people, parents, carers, schools, pupils and parish councils. A number of discretionary changes were made to the policy because of these responses, notably not introducing the changes all at once, even though that reduced the immediate savings to be gained, and especially extending the eligibility of families with low incomes to have free transport to attend one of three nearest schools within 12 miles. This mitigation supports our aim wherever possible to support the most vulnerable.

We have committed to a review after one year of operation when reliable data on admissions and travel will be known, but also to monitor the changes and report to colleagues through the coming year.

To help we have brought travel arrangements forward by over two weeks from their normal timescale, but inevitably are now being criticised that this includes a Bank Holiday, and school half term.

Carl Les is North Yorkshire Council leader